The Elder Brother

[Scott Shahan]

Luke 15:28 But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, 29 but he answered his father, ‘Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!’ 31 And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’”



What is wrong (the problem) with the elder brother?

 

[A5pointer]

Representative of the legalistic Jews who would begrudge God's freely given grace.

 

[Scott Shahan]

What is the difference between legalism and obiedence?

 

[A5pointer]

Obedience cannot earn God's favor. Obedience rightly flows out of gratitude and recognizes no one is intrinsically deserving.

 

[bwsmith]

Luke 15:28 But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, 29 but he answered his father, ‘Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!’ 31 And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’”



What is wrong (the problem) with the elder brother?

For starters:
He shared no joy that God returned his brother to his father, whose patient grief should well have touched him. He was angry that God returned a penitent sinner, and withheld the hand of fellowship!

The older brother also most likely exaggerated his “piety,” given his response. And he condemned his father as niggardly.

 

[JohnV]

The problem was that this wasn't about parties. This was about the brother returning. It wasn't about fairness, it wasn't about how faithful he had been, or his many years of service. It was about the fact that the brother returned home.

 

[bwsmith]

The problem was that this wasn't about parties. This was about the brother returning. It wasn't about fairness, it wasn't about how faithful he had been, or his many years of service. It was about the fact that the brother returned home.

You are right it wasn't simply about parties -- it was -- and is -- about a deadly attitude.

 

[JohnV]

You are right it wasn't simply about parties -- it was -- and is -- about a deadly attitude.

This is a parable, not a historical event. There is nothing about the older brother repenting or being accused of sin, or anything like that. It is included to teach us something. The older brother's reaction is quite typical of us, and Jesus lays it out plainly enough for us to see the fault in it; He lays it bare for us. It can be a quite deadly sin, but this isn't about that either. It's not about seeing sin in others, but in seeing how selfish and jealous we can get sometimes.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Luke 15:28 But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, 29 but he answered his father, ‘Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!’ 31 And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’”



What is wrong (the problem) with the elder brother?

This is the the last parable in a string of 3 Parables that begins with:
[bible]Luke 15:1-2[/bible]

It is clear, from the context, that the issue of all three is the joy of the Father at the redemption of His sons although it is a parable.

The younger son, though breaking every social custom, asking for his inheritance (which amounted to wishing his father dead), etc, comes to his senses and returns home to seek forgiveness and ask only to be a hired hand. Shockingly, the father runs to him (extremely undignified) and after the son repents, before the son can even request to be a hired hand, restores the boy to full sonship and throws a huge celebration.

The eldest son's attitude is particularly shocking to that culture for the following reasons:
1. He refuses to come in to his father's house at the father's command - a tremendous faux pass in that culture. Yet the father comes to him
2. He doesn't address the father as "Father,..." but says "Look!"
3. He refers to his sonship as a virtual slavery. No joy, no love, just duty.
4. He distinguishes between "...his friends..." and those that the father takes delight in.
5. He doesn't even call his brother "my brother" but simply "...this son of yours[/i[...."

In short, the elder brother has no love for the father. He doesn't love who the father loves nor does he delight in the things that the father delights in.

Though a parable, in the end it is very interesting to note parallels to other imagery of Christ's warnings. The older brother is standing outside, in the darkness, while a celebration is going on inside.

In the context, this is a clear rebuke of the Pharisees attitude about who Jesus came to save. The older brother in the story is clearly identified with the Pharisees who are condemning Christ for eating with tax collectors and sinners.

 

[VictorBravo]

I like Rich's exposition. It's pretty much how I view it.

But still, this part always intrigued me:

And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead. . . .

I wonder if it can be taken to apply to ill-tempered Christians too, as a rebuke.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I like Rich's exposition. It's pretty much how I view it.

But still, this part always intrigued me:

And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead. . . .

I wonder if it can be taken to apply to ill-tempered Christians too, as a rebuke.

I know it's a parable but couldn't we reconcile the "...all that I have is yours..." as the Inheritance (the Promise) itself? The Pharisees, after all, were externally joined to the Promised inheritance. They had, in their flesh, a sign of the righteousness that Abraham had by faith while still uncircumcised. Yet, it was an inheritance they would have to claim by faith. The Promise, in this parable, is right in front of their very eyes. The house is alive with the celebration of redemption. Every spiritual blessing is on display in the household but the elder brother will not go in.

I don't think the necessary implication is that the Pharisess still get everything in the end but that they have been given the Promise on condition of belief. They are without excuse, in fact, for not believing.

Is this not the very condemnation of Galatians that the Judaizing Pharisees do not embrace the Promise that Abraham had 400 years prior to the Law and substitute their idea of Torah keeping for the Promise itself?

I'm not trying to read too much into this passage but, just remember, the father isn't dead yet. The inheritance is still a hope for the older brother and not a reality. Everything that the father owns is technically the elder brother's at this point. In fact, the Parable ends mid-story before the elder brother has decided what he's going to do.

 

[Larry Hughes]

The elder brother reveals himself to be exactly the same as the prodigal. He desired not the relationship with the father but his own way. Many parallels can be made here, Jew/Gentile, Legalist/Antinomian, etc... In the end analysis the Jew/Gentile and Legalist/Anitnomian are no different what so ever ALL justify themselves in a legal mode not in relationship again. The common thread between the legalist and antinomian is the same, both see the Law as a legal thing, not relational and not as love. Both miss the point of what they have fallen from, sin.

The elder brother reveals that he hates his father just as much as the younger brother, in fact he reveals a real jealousy in that the younger brother DID what he all along was shooting for, to have his own way without the father. When the father forgives the younger he does not see restoration of the relationship but an injustice of a legal way and it infuriates him.

Both the religious zealot and a promiscuous person commonly justify themselves, yet the religious zealot calls the promiscuous an antinomian and the promiscuous calls the religious zealot the legalist. Ironically, both are actually self righteous which is another way of saying unrighteous. The religious zealot only pretends to love God and His law, but his deception is revealed when God grants mercy to the promiscuous and the RZ is infuriated by it. In this he reveals his hand, he only loved the legistlation of law, he did not love which IS in fact the heart of the Law to which we are fallen. Like wise if the RZ is granted mercy the promiscous sees it only as a legal reward. BOTH function the same way.

Ldh

 

[VictorBravo]

Is this not the very condemnation of Galatians that the Judaizing Pharisees do not embrace the Promise that Abraham had 400 years prior to the Law and substitute their idea of Torah keeping for the Promise itself?

I'm not trying to read too much into this passage but, just remember, the father isn't dead yet. The inheritance is still a hope for the older brother and not a reality. Everything that the father owns is technically the elder brother's at this point. In fact, the Parable ends mid-story before the elder brother has decided what he's going to do.

I'm inclined to agree, that's a stronger reading considering the context.

I catch the hint of kind hope in the father's tone, loving when not loved. Some of the Pharisees did come around, too. But not because they deserved it.

 

[christiana]

The elder brother never came to the end of himself, to realize that without the Father he was nothing. He had it all, or so he'd thought and felt he should be recognized! The younger used up all of his resources, ate with pigs, realized that he was totally without resources and most humbly came to his father with gratitude for anything at all! Which is where we must arrive at before an awarenss of our need dawns on us; we are bankrupt and need a Savior.

 

[Scott Shahan]

The elder brother never came to the end of himself, to realize that without the Father he was nothing. He had it all, or so he'd thought and felt he should be recognized! The younger used up all of his resources, ate with pigs, realized that he was totally without resources and most humbly came to his father with gratitude for anything at all! Which is where we must arrive at before an awarenss of our need dawns on us; we are bankrupt and need a Savior.